1991 PLP 1750 (SCMR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1750 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government (Lands) Punjab Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1750 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government (Lands) Punjab Act (V of 1912) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1750 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1750 (SCMR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Abdul Hakeem Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1990.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Abdul Hakeem Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated 6-6-1989 in C.R. No. 123-D of 1989).
S. 10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Entitlement to
Petitioners had instituted suit for declaration claiming that specific Ihata in village Abadi was owned by their predecessor-in-interest and that two decrees of specific dates passed in respect of that Ihata were not binding on them
All the three Courts below dismissed petitioners' suit
Courts below had found that petitioners were not able to prove that Ihata in possession of predecessor-in-interest of respondents belonged to predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, and in course of time devolved upon them and that respondents were mere owners of malba
Record showed that respondents had been litigating inter se regarding said Ihata and decrees were passed but petitioners evinced no interest to intrude into the litigation in their capacity as owners
Such fact conclusively showed that petitioners themselves were not, clear as regards their own title
No case was made out for interference
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition by Ch. Muhammad Khan and others, petitioners, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 6‑6‑1989.
2. The petitioners instituted a suit for a declaration claiming that Ihata No. 64 in Village Abadi of Daultala was owned by one Saran Das, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, that the decrees passed on 8‑10‑1978 and 15‑6‑1981 were not binding upon the petitioners' rights of ownership, and that the respondents, who were mere owners of malba and had right of residence only in the Ihata, were not possessed of any rights to alienate the same. All the three Courts dismissed the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court.
3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have gone through the record and some of the documents. The three Courts have held that the petitioners were not been able to prove that the Ihata in possession of Noor and Hayat, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, belonged to Saran Das, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, and in course of time devolved on them and that Noor and Hayat were mere owners of malba. It appears that the descendants of Noor and Hayat litigated inter se regarding the said Ihata and decrees were passed in 1978 and 1981, but strangely the petitioners evinced no interest to intrude into the litigation in their capacity as owners. This conclusively shows that they themselves were not clear as regards their own title. Taking all circumstances into consideration, we do not consider this to be a fit case for interference. This petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑1328/S Petition dismissed.